Case Summaries – Page 357 – Electronic Discovery Law

DE Techs., Inc. v. Dell Inc., 2006 WL 3500962 (W.D. Va. Dec. 4, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Magistrate judge barred Dell from using certain documents at trial since plaintiff had no notice that the documents would be relied upon by Dell to support its defenses until the documents were specifically produced after the discovery deadline; court noted that, although the documents were among some 542,917 documents produced by Dell in electronic form and in a searchable format using a CaseData System, there was no evidence that Dell ever identified any of the documents provided on the CaseData System as responsive to any particular discovery request, and documents were neither produced as “kept in the ordinary course of business” nor as “ordinarily maintained”

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents produced in searchable database

Discover Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 2006 WL 3462125 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court declined to compel American Express to search for email sent from and to certain executives who were no longer employed by American Express, since the moving parties had not agreed to search for email sent from or to their own former executives and American Express had already produced some 27,501 emails sent to or from certain former executives through the production of email from other custodians

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Email of former executives

Wells v. Orange County Sch. Bd., 2006 WL 4824479 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant’s initial email search was not appropriate and incomplete and court observed that ?better communications and diligence ? e.g., through personal interaction rather than email between general counsel and the IT director ? would have avoided one year?s delay in producing relevant documents,? court denied motion to compel since record indicated that further searches would be futile, but awarded plaintiff costs of motion

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Durdin v. Kuryakyn Holdings, Inc., 2006 WL 6040466 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 7, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant never attempted to preserve email related to disputed products, did not impose email preservation directive and did not suspend policy of destroying all email after 30 days, but asserted that no relevant email was destroyed because its employees never exchanged emails on topics relevant to lawsuit, court declined to enter default judgment absent stronger proof of bad faith intent and reserved decision on adverse inference instruction; court would allow parties to explore with witnesses at trial whether they exchanged and then destroyed relevant email

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Braun v. Agri-Systems, 2006 WL 278592 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced digitized documents from defendant’s inspection of nine boxes of hard copy documents (some 10,000 pages) per the parties’ agreement, court denied defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to provide an index of such digitized documents, finding that Rule 34 does not require a party to create an index

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, negligence and breach of confidentiality agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Index of digital documents

Kingsway Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Pricewaterhouse-Coopers LLP, 2006 WL 1520227 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2006) and 2006 WL 1295409 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Magistrate ruled that, although litigation hold notices were relevant (“Like a party’s destruction of relevant documents, if plaintiff’s document retention notices are patently deficient or inadequate in some other respect, they might support a negative inference concerning the merits of plaintiff’s claims.?), they were privileged and not subject to production; plaintiff’s failure to list them in privilege log did not effect waiver because notices were not in existence at the time plaintiff?s response to the requests for production was due

Nature of Case: Acquiring corporation sued acquired corporation’s officers, directors, and independent auditor for securities fraud and other torts

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation hold notices issued by plaintiff

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Scroghan, 851 N.E.2d 317 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court abused its descretion when it refused to enter protective order addressing Allstate’s production of computer program and manuals, since plaintiff made no showing that discovery under a protective order would be detrimental to his case, and it was shown that discovery without a protective order could be detrimental to Allstate

Nature of Case: Bad faith insurance litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Colossus computer program used by Allstate to evaluate claims

Arista Records, LLC v. Tschirhart, 2006 WL 2728927 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court entered default judgment as discovery sanction where forensic evidence showed that defendant deliberately used ?wiping? software to permanently remove data from her hard drive and stated: “The sanction in the present case is to deter other defendants in similar cases from attempting to destroy or conceal evidence of their wrongdoing.”

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Adverse inference and monetary sanctions warranted, but not default judgment, where defendant acknowledged that its personnel routinely deleted emails without regard to whether the deleted emails were relevant to the litigation, but behavior did not constitute a pattern of deliberately deceptive litigation practices and there was evidence that the actual number of emails lost was small

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

In re Atlantic Int’l Mortg. Co., 352 B.R. 503 (Aug. 2, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Although it concluded that default judgment against former general counsel was not warranted, court found that discovery misconduct of former general counsel and its attorneys bordered on obstruction and awarded trustee its reasonable attorneys fees and costs in pursuing all discovery in the proceeding

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy trustee sued debtor’s former general counsel for breach of fiduciary duty and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Computer systems and electronic records

Catagory:Case Summaries

DE Techs., Inc. v. Dell Inc., 2006 WL 3500962 (W.D. Va. Dec. 4, 2006)

Discover Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 2006 WL 3462125 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2006)

Wells v. Orange County Sch. Bd., 2006 WL 4824479 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2006)

Durdin v. Kuryakyn Holdings, Inc., 2006 WL 6040466 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 7, 2006)

Braun v. Agri-Systems, 2006 WL 278592 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2006)

Kingsway Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Pricewaterhouse-Coopers LLP, 2006 WL 1520227 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2006) and 2006 WL 1295409 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2006)

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Scroghan, 851 N.E.2d 317 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)

Arista Records, LLC v. Tschirhart, 2006 WL 2728927 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2006)

In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig., 462 F.Supp.2d 1060 (N.D. Cal. 2006)

In re Atlantic Int’l Mortg. Co., 352 B.R. 503 (Aug. 2, 2006)